An amendment to my last post, which was:
“Without such a mechanism the notion of there being a receptive difference is impossible to conceptualise, so rendering Jamie's belief that there is one, merely an act of faith.”
I should have said:
“Without such a mechanism the notion of there being an aesthetically receptive difference is impossible to conceptualise, so rendering Jamie's belief that there is one, merely an act of faith.”
----------------------------Original Message---------------------
David Lace wrote:
Good point, Tim, when you say:
"Of course the two forms of the poems are going to be received differently but that doesn't tell us anything different than if one form of the poem was shouted while the other was whispered, or one was printed in multiple colours and one wasn't."
I tried to pin Jamie down on this by asking him what psychological mechanism was in play to allow any difference to be discerned in a receptive sense, and he didn't answer. Without such a mechanism the notion of there being a receptive difference is impossible to conceptualise, so rendering Jamie's belief that there is one, merely an act of faith.
----------------------------Original Message---------------------
Tim Allen wrote:
Jamie, thanks for responding but you have not answered my points. I don't mean the personal experience thing. Peter hasn't answered my questions either. No matter.
Just like to say that I really don't see how what you say in your final sentence below could possibly back-up your determination to, as David said, see a distinction. Of course the two forms of the poems are going to be received differently but that doesn't tell us anything different than if one form of the poem was shouted while the other was whispered, or one was printed in multiple colours and one wasn't.
|